AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,762/- paid by the appellant. The Commissioner also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 80 lakhs under the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Hewlett Packard Europe BV and the unit is a 100% EOU working under the STP scheme for the development of software. Appellant has also been issued Customs Private Bonded Warehousing License and In-bond Manufacturing Sanction Order dt 23/05/2000 for manufacturing, development and export of computer software under Section 58 and Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant got the extension of the Priv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt had received imported capital goods from M/s. Verifone India Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore after its merger under IUT during 2001 which were stored in two store rooms at the basement of their premises which was also duly bonded but without being used. The two store rooms were sealed under a Mahazar dt. 28/06/2005 and thereafter the Department recorded the statements of various persons/employees of the appellant and after completion of the investigation, the appellant was issued a show-cause noticed dt. 02/05/2008 demanding the duty under the provisions of Section 72(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also proposed penalty under various sections of the Customs Act. Appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice controverting the allegation in the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipient unit. He further submitted that the said condition of use was introduced into the notification by way of amendment to Notification No.140/1991-Cus by Notification No.64/2002-Cus dt. 24/06/2002. It is his further submission that this condition of use inserted on 24/06/2002 can only be prospective and would apply to imports carried out on or after the date of importation whereas in the present case import happened during 1990 to 1998 and IUT was done in 2001 and therefore the condition is not applicable to the transaction made by Verifone prior to this date. It is his further submission that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the Notification No 52/2003-Cus dt. 31/03/2003 as the said notification is not applicable as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtension of their private bonded warehousing licence up to 11/08/2010 and as per the CBEC circular No. 7/2005-Cus dt. 14/02/2005, necessity of the EOUs seeking periodical extension of warehousing has been done away with. In support of this submission, the appellant has relied upon the following decisions:- i. Natural Exports Ltd. Vs. CC [2006(18) ELT 440 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. SCC, Bangalore Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. [2003(159) ELT 863 (Tri. Bang.)] iii. Macmillan India Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore [2008(223) ELT 443 (Tri. Bang)] iv. Sun Microsystem India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore [2008(225) ELT 120 (Tri. Bang.)] 4.4. He further submitted that it is not disputed that the duty free imported capital goods covered by the show-cause n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order. 6. After considering the submission of both sides and perused of material on record, we find that the only violation alleged against the appellant is that the appellants have violated the condition of the notification and has not used the capital goods on IUT. Further we find that in the said notification No. 140/91-Cus, there was no such condition that at the time of IUT, the recipient unit must use the goods. We also find that this condition of use by the recipient unit was introduced in the Notification No. 140/1991 by customs notification No.64/2002-Cus dt. 24/06/2002 which is after the transfer of goods to the present unit and therefore this condition of use cannot be made applicable retrospectively. Further we also ....